[fargolime]

If the benefits and carryover paid for it, fine. But I doubt it, not now anyway. If it wasn't borrowed money, I'd say throw .5% at at it. But no way when it's borrowed, unless it can be proven beyond doubt that the outcome is net positive.

[caseydurfee]

I really wish we could retire the word "borrowed" to describe the nature of sovereign debt. It makes it sound like we're borrowing dollars from the Chinese to pay NASA. That's not how it works. (United States currency is one of the few things that isn't made in China these days.)

[fargolime]

Are you suggesting there are no adverse consequences to the "borrowing", similar to borrowing?

[IndianAstronaut]

>But I doubt it, not now anyway.

NASA's contributions are estimated to have a 2-3 to 1 fold revenue generation for NASA spending.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20100827_1798.php

[fargolime]

That's why I said not now anyway. In the past, sure, it drove innovation to a great degree. But at this point we've wrung out the biggest gains. Almost anything NASA develops nowadays has little benefit to the public at large. It's entertainment mostly.

[IndianAstronaut]

It can have huge consequences for us down the line. For example when Theodore Roosevelt decided to preserve national parks, it wasn't as big of a benefit to the public, mainly recreation. But in Yellowstone's hot springs a bacteria was discovered which now helps major biological processes through a technique called PCR.

Investments in science can have huge payoffs.

[fargolime]

We should consider the alternatives. We're borrowing $trillions annually, so we have to pick our battles carefully. Why spend $billions to maybe possibly discover something like that, when the same $$$ can definitely pay back on some other crucial item? For example, most NASA funding should already have been diverted to solving the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico; that's a more critical need that's currently being ignored. And that's only one of many giant cleanup tasks left to be done.